Russia’s invasion of Ukraine can fairly be called many things, but “unprovoked” (Roll Call, 2/24/22) is not one of them.
Many governments and media figures are rightly condemning Russian President Vladimir Putin’s attack on Ukraine as an act of aggression and a violation of international law. But in his first speech about the invasion, on February 24, US President Joe Biden also called the invasion “unprovoked.”
It’s a word that has been echoed repeatedly across the media ecosystem. “Putin’s forces entered Ukraine’s second-largest city on the fourth day of the unprovoked invasion,” Axios (2/27/22) reported; “Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine entered its second week Friday,” said CNBC (3/4/22). Vox (3/1/22) wrote of “Putin’s decision to launch an unprovoked and unnecessary war with the second-largest country in Europe.”
The “unprovoked” descriptor obscures a long history of provocative behavior from the United States in regards to Ukraine. This history is important to understanding how we got here, and what degree of responsibility the US bears for the current attack on Ukraine.
Ignoring expert advice
The story starts at the end of the Cold War, when the US was the only global hegemon. As part of the deal that finalized the reunification of Germany, the US promised Russia that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.” Despite this, it wasn’t long before talk of expansion began to circulate among policy makers.
In 1997, dozens of foreign policy veterans (including former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and former CIA Director Stansfield Turner) sent a joint letter to then-President Bill Clinton calling “the current US-led effort to expand NATO…a policy error of historic proportions.” They predicted:
In Russia, NATO expansion, which continues to be opposed across the entire political spectrum, will strengthen the nondemocratic opposition, undercut those who favor reform and cooperation with the West [and] bring the Russians to question the entire post-Cold War settlement.
Diplomat George Kennan (New York Times, 5/2/98) said NATO expansion would be “a tragic mistake.”
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman (5/2/98) in 1998 asked famed diplomat George Kennan—architect of the US Cold War strategy of containment—about NATO expansion. Kennan’s response:
I think it is the beginning of a new cold war. I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else.
Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are—but this is just wrong.
Despite these warnings, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic were added to NATO in 1999, with Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia following in 2004.
US planners were warned again in 2008 by US Ambassador to Moscow William Burns (now director of the CIA under Joe Biden). WikiLeaks leaked a cable from Burns titled “Nyet Means Nyet: Russia’s NATO Enlargement Redlines” that included another prophetic warning worth quoting in full (emphasis added):
Ukraine and Georgia’s NATO aspirations not only touch a raw nerve in Russia, they engender serious concerns about the consequences for stability in the region. Not only does Russia perceive encirclement, and efforts to undermine Russia’s influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests.
Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face.
A de facto NATO ally
As Russia threatened to invade Ukraine over the threat of NATO expansion, NATO’s response was to emphasize that Ukraine would some day join the alliance (New York Times, 12/16/21).
But the US has pushed Russia to make such a decision. Though European countries are divided about whether or not Ukraine should join, many in the NATO camp have been adamant about maintaining the alliance’s “open door policy.” Even as US planners were warning of a Russian invasion, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg reiterated NATO’s 2008 plans to integrate Ukraine into the alliance (New York Times, 12/16/21). The Biden administration has taken a more roundabout approach, supporting in the abstract “Kyiv’s right to choose its own security arrangements and alliances.” But the implication is obvious.
Even without officially being in NATO, Ukraine has become a de facto NATO ally—and Russia has paid close attention to these developments. In a December 2021 speech to his top military officials, Putin expressed his concerns:
Over the past few years, military contingents of NATO countries have been almost constantly present on Ukrainian territory under the pretext of exercises. The Ukrainian troop control system has already been integrated into NATO. This means that NATO headquarters can issue direct commands to the Ukrainian armed forces, even to their separate units and squads….
Kiev has long proclaimed a strategic course on joining NATO. Indeed, each country is entitled to pick its own security system and enter into military alliances. There would be no problem with that, if it were not for one “but.” International documents expressly stipulate the principle of equal and indivisible security, which includes obligations not to strengthen one’s own security at the expense of the security of other states….
In other words, the choice of pathways towards ensuring security should not pose a threat to other states, whereas Ukraine joining NATO is a direct threat to Russia’s security.
In an explainer piece, the New York Times (2/24/22) centered NATO expansion as a root cause of the war. Unfortunately, the Times omitted the critical context of NATO’s pledge not to expand, and the subsequent abandonment of that promise. This is an important context to understand the Russian view of US policies, especially so given the ample warnings from US diplomats and foreign policy experts.
The Maidan Coup of 2014
A major turning point in the US/Ukraine/Russia relationship was the 2014 violent and unconstitutional ouster of President Viktor Yanukovych, elected in 2010 in a vote heavily split between eastern and western Ukraine. His ouster came after months of protests led in part by far-right extremists (FAIR.org, 3/7/14). Weeks before his ouster, an unknown party leaked a phone call between US officials discussing who should and shouldn’t be part of the new government, and finding ways to “seal the deal.” After the ouster, a politician the officials designated as “the guy” even became prime minister.
The US involvement was part of a campaign aimed at exploiting the divisions in Ukrainian society to push the country into the US sphere of influence, pulling it out of the Russian sphere (FAIR.org, 1/28/22). In the aftermath of the overthrow, Russia illegally annexed Crimea from Ukraine, in part to secure a major naval base from the new Ukrainian government.
The New York Times (2/24/22) and Washington Post (2/28/22) both omitted the role the US played in these events. In US media, this critical moment in history is completely cleansed of US influence, erasing a critical step on the road to the current war.
Keeping civil war alive
In another response to the overthrow, an uprising in Ukraine’s Donbas region grew into a rebel movement that declared independence from Ukraine and announced the formation of their own republics. The resulting civil war claimed thousands of lives, but was largely paused in 2015 with a ceasefire agreement known as the Minsk II accords.
Anatol Lieven (The Nation, 11/15/21): “US administrations, the political establishment, and the mainstream media have quietly buried…the refusal of Ukrainian governments to implement the solution and the refusal of the United States to put pressure on them to do so.”
The deal, agreed to by Ukraine, Russia and other European countries, was designed to grant some form of autonomy to the breakaway regions in exchange for reintegrating them into the Ukrainian state. Unfortunately, the Ukrainian government refused to implement the autonomy provision of the accords. Anatol Lieven, a researcher with the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, wrote in The Nation (11/15/21):
The main reason for this refusal, apart from a general commitment to retain centralized power in Kiev, has been the belief that permanent autonomy for the Donbas would prevent Ukraine from joining NATO and the European Union, as the region could use its constitutional position within Ukraine to block membership.
Ukraine opted instead to prolong the Donbas conflict, and there was never significant pressure from the West to alter course. Though there were brief reports of the accords’ revival as recently as late January, Ukrainian security chief Oleksiy Danilov warned the West not to pressure Ukraine to implement the peace deal. “The fulfillment of the Minsk agreement means the country’s destruction,” he said (AP, 1/31/22). Danilov claimed that even when the agreement was signed eight years ago, “it was already clear for all rational people that it’s impossible to implement.”
Lieven notes that the depth of Russian commitment has yet to be fully tested, but Putin has supported the Minsk accords, refraining from officially recognizing the Donbas republics until last week.
The New York Times (2/8/22) explainer on the Minsk accords blamed their failure on a disagreement between Ukraine and Russia over their implementation. This is inadequate to explain the failure of the agreements, however, given that Russia cannot affect Ukrainian parliamentary procedure. The Times quietly acknowledged that the law meant to define special status in the Donbas had been “shelved” by the Ukranians, indicating that the country had stopped trying to solve the issue in favor of a stalemate.
There was no mention of the comments from a top Ukrainian official openly denouncing the peace accords. Nor was it acknowledged that the US could have used its influence to push Ukraine to solve the issue, but refrained from doing so.
Ukrainian missile crisis
The Washington Post‘s Hitler analogy (2/24/22) is a bit much, considering that the Ukrainian government provides veterans benefits to militias that actually participated in the Holocaust (Kyiv Post, 12/24/18).
One under-discussed aspect of this crisis is the role of US missiles stationed in NATO countries. Many media outlets have claimed that Putin is Hitler-like (Washington Post, 2/24/22; Boston Globe, 2/24/22), hellbent on reconquering old Soviet states to “recreat[e] the Russian empire with himself as the Tsar,” as Clinton State Department official Strobe Talbot told Politico (2/25/22).
Pundits try to psychoanalyze Putin, asking “What is motivating him?” and answering by citing his televised speech on February 21 that recounted the history of Ukraine’s relationship with Russia.
This speech has been widely characterized as a call to reestablish the Soviet empire and a challenge to Ukraine’s right to exist as a sovereign nation. Corporate media ignore other public statements Putin has made in recent months. For example, at an expanded meeting of the Defense Ministry Board, Putin elaborated on what he considered to be the main military threat from US/NATO expansion to Ukraine:
It is extremely alarming that elements of the US global defense system are being deployed near Russia. The Mk 41 launchers, which are located in Romania and are to be deployed in Poland, are adapted for launching the Tomahawk strike missiles. If this infrastructure continues to move forward, and if US and NATO missile systems are deployed in Ukraine, their flight time to Moscow will be only 7–10 minutes, or even five minutes for hypersonic systems. This is a huge challenge for us, for our security.
The United States does not possess hypersonic weapons yet, but we know when they will have it…. They will supply hypersonic weapons to Ukraine and then use them as cover…to arm extremists from a neighbouring state and incite them against certain regions of the Russian Federation, such as Crimea, when they think circumstances are favorable.
Do they really think we do not see these threats? Or do they think that we will just stand idly watching threats to Russia emerge? This is the problem: We simply have no room to retreat.
Having these missiles so close to Russia—weapons that Russia (and China) see as part of a plan to give the United States the capacity to launch a nuclear first-strike without retaliation—seriously challenges the cold war deterrent of Mutually Assured Destruction, and more closely resembles a gun pointed at the Russian head for the remainder of the nuclear age. Would this be acceptable to any country?
Media refuse to present this crucial question to their audiences, instead couching Putin’s motives in purely aggressive terms.
Refusal to de-escalate
As the threat of war loomed, Secretary of State Antony Blinken (Twitter, 1/27/22) framed the issue of NATO expansion as “Kyiv’s right to choose its own security arrangements and alliances”—as though NATO were a public accommodation open to anyone who wanted to join.
By December 2021, US intelligence agencies were sounding the alarm that Russia was amassing troops at the Ukrainian border and planning to attack. Yet Putin was very clear about a path to deescalation: He called on the West to halt NATO expansion, negotiate Ukrainian neutrality in the East/West rivalry, remove US nuclear weapons from non proliferating countries, and remove missiles, troops and bases near Russia. These are demands the US would surely have made were it in Russia’s position.
Unfortunately, the US refused to negotiate on Russia’s core concerns. The US offered some serious steps towards a larger arms control arrangement (Antiwar.com, 2/2/22)—something the Russians acknowledged and appreciated—but ignored issues of NATO’s military activity in Ukraine, and the deployment of nuclear weapons in Eastern Europe (Antiwar.com, 2/17/22).
On NATO expansion, the State Department continued to insist that they would not compromise NATO’s open door policy—in other words, it asserted the right to expand NATO and to ignore Russia’s red line.
While the US has signaled that it would approve of an informal agreement to keep Ukraine from joining the alliance for a period of time, this clearly was not going to be enough for Russia, which still remembers the last broken agreement.
Instead of addressing Russian concerns about Ukraine’s NATO relationship, the US instead chose to pour hundreds of millions of dollars of weapons into Ukraine, exacerbating Putin’s expressed concerns. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy didn’t help matters by suggesting that Ukraine might begin a nuclear weapons program at the height of the tensions.
After Putin announced his recognition of the breakaway republics, Secretary of State Antony Blinken canceled talks with Putin, and began the process of implementing sanctions on Russia—all before Russian soldiers had set foot into Ukraine.
Had the US been genuinely interested in avoiding war, it would have taken every opportunity to de-escalate the situation. Instead, it did the opposite nearly every step of the way.
In its explainer piece, the Washington Post (2/28/22) downplayed the significance of the US’s rejection of Russia’s core concerns, writing: “Russia has said that it wants guarantees Ukraine will be barred from joining NATO—a non-starter for the Western alliance, which maintains an open-door policy.” NATO’s open door policy is simply accepted as an immutable policy that Putin just needs to deal with. This very assumption, so key to the Ukraine crisis, goes unchallenged in the US media ecosystem.
‘The strategic case for risking war’
John Deni (Wall Street Journal, 12/22/21): “There are good strategic reasons for the West to stake out a hard-line approach, giving little ground to Moscow.”
It’s impossible to say for sure why the Biden administration took an approach that increased the likelihood of war, but one Wall Street Journal piece from last month may offer some insight.
The Journal (12/22/21) published an op-ed from John Deni, a researcher at the Atlantic Council, a think tank funded by the US and allied governments that serves as NATO’s de facto brain trust. The piece was provocatively headlined “The Strategic Case for Risking War in Ukraine.” Deni’s argument was that the West should refuse to negotiate with Russia, because either potential outcome would be beneficial to US interests.
If Putin backed down without a deal, it would be a major embarrassment. He would lose face and stature, domestically and on the world stage.
But Putin going to war would also be good for the US, the Journal op-ed argued. Firstly, it would give NATO more legitimacy by “forg[ing] an even stronger anti-Russian consensus across Europe.” Secondly, a major attack would trigger “another round of more debilitating economic sanctions,” weakening the Russian economy and its ability to compete with the US for global influence. Thirdly, an invasion is “likely to spawn a guerrilla war” that would “sap the strength and morale of Russia’s military while undercutting Mr. Putin’s domestic popularity and reducing Russia’s soft power globally.”
In short, we have part of the NATO brain trust advocating risking Ukrainian civilians as pawns in the US’s quest to strengthen its position around the world.
‘Something even worse than war’
What would be worse than thousands of Ukrainians dying? According to this New York Times op-ed (2/3/22), “a new European security architecture that recognizes Russia’s sphere of influence in the post-Soviet space.”
A New York Times op-ed (2/3/22) by Ivan Krastev of Vienna’s Institute of Human Sciences likewise suggested that a Russian invasion of Ukraine wouldn’t be the worst outcome:
A Russian incursion into Ukraine could, in a perverse way, save the current European order. NATO would have no choice but to respond assertively, bringing in stiff sanctions and acting in decisive unity. By hardening the conflict, Mr. Putin could cohere his opponents.
The op-ed was headlined “Europe Thinks Putin Is Planning Something Even Worse Than War”—that something being “a new European security architecture that recognizes Russia’s sphere of influence in the post-Soviet space.”
It is impossible to know for sure whether the Biden administration shared this sense that there would be an upside to a Russian invasion, but the incentives are clear, and much of what these op-eds predicted is coming to pass.
None of this is to say that Putin’s invasion is justified—FAIR resolutely condemns the invasion as illegal and ruinous—but calling it “unprovoked” distracts attention from the US’s own contribution to this disastrous outcome. The US ignored warnings from both Russian and US officials that a major conflagration could erupt if the US continued its path, and it shouldn’t be surprising that one eventually did.
Now, as the world once again inches toward the brink of nuclear omnicide, it is more important than ever for Western audiences to understand and challenge their own government’s role in dragging us all to this point.
Featured image: Wikimedia map of NATO expansion since 1949 (creator:Patrickneil).
Baiting the Bear with the lives of those it sheds crocodile tears over
Bryce, i appreciate your in-depth, well-documented essays for FAIR trying to provide a much larger context for what is presently happening.
I wish you would explain one glaring thing: why have so many eastern European nations fervently desired to become NATO members? –Would it have anything to do with the fact that none of them trusted autocrat Vladimir Putin (former KGB head) and they had much greater faith for their future well-being in alliance with NATO members?
Also, you keep referring to the Maidan revolution to remove President Viktor Yanukovych as if he was some kind of wholesome figure, but surely you’re aware of his past and charges of corruption (not to mention two assault charges in his late teens)–i mean, this guy’s later political prowess was as a creature largely fashioned by master-manipulator Paul Manafort (friend/advisor of autocrats Marcos, Mobutu, and other thugs).
Let’s face it– Ukraine has a deeply conflicted past history with Russia, especially during the nightmarish years of Josef Stalin…. There is no easy solution to the opposite pulls of pro-West and pro-Russia tearing apart its population.
I understand how you see Putin as having been dangerously provoked over the years since the 1990s. But autocrats (like Trump) are always going to feel “provoked” by something or other, and their responses to developing circumstances are, as we’ve seen with Putin, not reasonable, not wholesome, not just,
Wholesome figure or not, Yanukovych was the democratically elected president of Ukraine. The remedy for corruption in a democracy is the next election, not a fascist coup orchestrated by the United States.
Yes, this is the moronic “Russian scholar” Stephen Cohen’s (whose wife edits the Nation magazine, btw) point that Yanukovich’s turn to Russia after being elected (the Maidan started when he announced his refusal to join the EU as promised), and his using the GRU to shoot 100 people on the square, the Jan 16, 2014 laws to imprison all protestors for 5 years, and offshoring 10% of Ukraine’s GDP to klan and family, are Yanukovich’s “democratic” credentials.
Yes, of course, the CIA paid 800,000 people to go to the Maidan. Uh, the $40k to streaming internet site Hromadske.tv that streamed the Maidan is not exactly CIA/VOA “support” of a “coup”.
This narrative is Soviet American Left bs and propaganda that wants to ignore that the Maidan was the first popular movement to throw out corruption, kleptocracy, and oligarchy.
There is zero justification or provocation that requires an invasion of Ukraine. It obviously doesn’t belong to Putin, the Russians have shut down their free press to hide what even the Russian’s own people know is wrong, and has the additional benefit of closing Russia to outside international norms letting the human rights and political imprisonments, assassinations, and corrupt autocratic theft continue unchecked.
What the discussion doesn’t need is clueless western commentators running off RT talking points that put Ukraine’s rejection of Russia in favor of European accountability in governance in terms of a military coup.
In 2014, what military?
U-N-P-R-O-V-O-K-E-D
Unless you count provocation as not doing what Vladimir Vladimirovich wants them to do, and removing their corrupt puppet who was looting the country.
A good summary of the non-military coup that was Putin initial attempt to subjugate Ukraine.
Neocon agitprop.
Do you even know what website you’re on? This website is about media accountability. This article isn’t saying Putin’s not doing anything wrong. The article is providing context to how we got to where we are today and saying “unprovoked” is a farce.
Your response fully reads as though you didn’t read the article and if you did, the message and purpose went over your head. Additionally, it appears as though you are unable to see outside of your specific cultural lens and framework which inhibits your ability to understand others motives and intentions. Additionally, reading comprehension is important. Educate yourself before you make STUPID responses like the one you just did. It’s embarrassing.
Actually, that is totally false, he was installed after a CIA led coup in Ukraine in 2014 that lead to the fall of the legitimately elected government, then replaced with pro-USA, through USA styled corrupt elections, the Zionist Bolshevik Government that has been encouraged by huge “financial contributions” and promises of even more should they conform to what the US and Brittain wishes. Just look at the technological and military inflow they have had from these two countries in particular. Look at the US Military bases all around Russia and the amount of weapons the US deployed on it boarders, if the roles were reversed the US would have acted a long time ago instead of the repeated negotiating tactics followed by Russia. Nope, here Russia has my support and I lay this one fully in front of the doors of the USA and UK.
The upheaval you describe omits some critical details, most importantly that:
1) Ukraine’s declaration of independence from Russia in 1991, was supported by over 90% of Ukrainian citizens. Though a smaller majority in Crimea, nearly every region was overwhelmingly opposed to remaining tied to Russia, and favored membership in the EU instead.
2) The election in 2004 of Yanukovych, an ally of Russia and Putin, whose support was expressed with evidence of electoral fraud and voter intimidation, was nullified by the Ukrainian Supreme Court who ordered a 2nd runoff, in which Yushchenko won.
3) When he did win a close election in 2010 against Tymoshenko, by all measures, legitimately, Yanukovych not only imprisoned his opponent, who had lost by less than 4 points, but he soon revealed that he mislead voters with claims that “Ukraine’s integration with the EU remains our strategic aim”, by abruptly rejecting the EU association agreement in favor of a relationship with Russia. With Putin’s autocratic character on full display by 2014, Ukrainians expressed their opposition to Moscow’s reach over Yanukovych, and his effort to realign with Russia, and protests erupted by the thousands.
The repressive anti-protest laws Yanukovych soon instituted, along with the Putin style cultivation of an oligarchy and his personal wealth, only fueled more rebellion. The disruption of that government was ultimately quelled by a call for early elections and the formation of an interim government.
The effort to impeach him before the early election was not orderly, and you may argue that it could be called a coup by the failure to observe all of the formal constitutional procedures. But that was only a formality ahead of the early election that voted in Poroshenko, who truly supported the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement, with a solid majority. The vast majority of Ukrainians wanted nothing to do with Yanukovych’s efforts to reunite Ukraine with Russia. They didn’t need any outside influence from the CIA, USA, UK or any others, to reject him.
Excellent summary.
Whatever. You do not speak for all of Ukrainians. I wish I had patience to debunk all of the bs you have listed as truth. Knowing how Ukraine works and how Maidan and post maidan went… you have zero shame to post this nonsense. 90% of people didn’t vote to separate in 1991. It was not a fair vote. Let’s start with that.
“so many eastern European nations fervently desired to become NATO members?”
I don’t know if that’s true but regardless: we promised not to extend NATO past (the whole of) Germany.
And the USA pushes NATO membership because one of the requirements is that they buy arms. You know who that enriches, right?
As far as “provoked,” we provoked Putin which led to Germany cancelling Nord Stream 2 — this means that Germany/EU will have to by more gas/oil from US. That’s why Texas’s Ted Cruz has become such a neocon — it benefits his state.
Russia promised to respect the territorial integrity of ukraine in 94.
as for gas and oil Germany wouldn’t need much of it if it didn’t shut down it’s nuclear plants.
Russia/USSR invaded all those current nato members setting up puppet governments and yet y’all wondering why they wanted to join nato?
Good facists like be NATO
Nothing new here. Many countries have valid historic reasons. Yet the push to NATO is a cheap ventile for the usual mix of valid reasons with irrational fears which always leads to war. Guns and bombs cause war. Simple.
Except that NATO has never initiated, or even participated in a war other than that in Afghanistan in response to the 9/11 attack. Unless you’re supporting the restoration of the Soviet Union and possibly beyond, NATO has been a critical factor in containing it since WWII.
Bim,
NATO’s been involved in 6 wars and many “Operations”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wars_involving_NATO
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_operations
“I don’t know if that’s true but regardless: we promised not to extend NATO past (the whole of) Germany.” Not correct -we promised not to militarize East Germany. No restrictions on NATO were made or implied.
“Even without officially being in NATO, Ukraine has become a de facto NATO ally” – Nonsense. What the hell is a de facto ally? you are an ally with papers or you are not.
This is indeed the fact that seems to be misleading several of the Putin defenders, including the author of this article.
NATO did represent, during the German Unification in 92, that they would not militarize East Germany. They have not.
It is also true that no restrictions on NATO were made or implied then. Their founding charter, that the are open to “Any European country in a position to further the principles of the Washington Treaty and contribute to security in the Euro-Atlantic area”, remains in effect.
@Rose, It is true that NATO has been involved in multiple defensive operations, and may even find it necessary to engage in this one if war crimes persist. But has never been an aggressor, or invading force, other than in the response to 9/11. Hence the lack of foundation for the claim that Ukraine, even as a NATO member, would pose a threat to Russia, outside of another Russian effort to invade them.
Is there a treaty agreement to that effect with the USSR (I country which no longer exists, I might add)?
There a none that remain with the now non-existent USSR. The only treaty with Russia that’s still active, at least on paper, is the New START Treaty, which is only a minor reduction in nuclear warheads to a still devastating quantity.
Russia has been authoring draft treaties that expressly deny the former Soviet regions any future NATO protection under the pretense that they would threaten Russia, when the clear motive is to preserve their vulnerability to his all but proclaimed intentions to try to recapture them.
East European myself, I’d like to point out that the desire to join NATO (or stay therein) is far from being an universal sentiment over here – as evidenced by the fact that our leaders didn’t even dare to ask our permission before taking us into NATO. Most vocal support for NATO (and EU) comes from the US-funded globalist lackeys, who, sadly, control our media – very much the same sort of people who support destroying of our indigenous culture, establishing open borders, introducing uncontrolled immigration and adding even more letters to the already overlong LGBT acronym.
Our main grievance towards Russia wasn’t caused by Putin (at least until he decided to use force towards a neighbor), it was caused by us spending decades under the USSR influence. Even though being a part of the East Bloc had many rather neat aspects, especially for us little working-class people, the whole thing tended to be a bit too overbearing and we were glad to get out of it (mostly because we didn’t know any better).
And while it is true we didn’t have the best experiences with the USSR, it should be said that we don’t have the best experiences with the West, either. The first major moment of disenchantment was when NATO bombed our brothers in Serbia because they didn’t want to cede an important part of their ancestral homeland to Albanian muslims (despite Albanians having their own country of… wait for it… Albania, conveniently placed right next door to Serbia). That incident was followed by twenty years of us sending our young men into Third World meatgrinders sparked by the US military adventurism. So no, NATO is far from being perceived as a good thing. Rather, a lesser of two evils – and even then, there are people who doubt if it is really the lesser one.
(By the way, how was Trump an autocrat? I don’t like to stand up for him, nor for the dead animal he wears on his head, but wasn’t he simply using the options granted to him by the Constitution, like any other president before him? Therefore, wasn’t Obama an autocrat too? Or Clinton? Or, hey, even Lincoln? I don’t remember Trump unilaterally suspending habeas corpus like Lincoln did.)
Fair points Jena. There’s generally some compromise in a democracy since it’s guided by a majority that is rarely a consensus. If you’re in the East, you would have a clearer view, but seems likely that the initial years of Russian democracy did not infringe on it’s neighbors, until later, when Putin began to overthrow elections, and abuse his power.
It’s then up to the majority to elect leaders that agree with their preference on NATO membership. If you have a Serbian alliance, I can see how you did not approve of the NATO defense of Albanians, who were seen as the victims when Yugoslavia refused the Rambouillet Accords. I’m sure there were valid disagreements between the Serbs and Albanians, and I understand your point that they had their own country. But I think it was the Milosevic led brutality, and ultimately war crimes, that prompted the NATO response. That was in fact the one time NATO acted without full approval of the UN, without agreement from China and Russia. But there was the global perception of ethnic cleansing by the Milosevic government that tends to set off alarms.
I understand the preference to maintain indigenous cultures, prevent uncontrolled immigration, and contain excessive emphasis of gender fluidity. I appreciate the history and preserved heritage of different regions, when they’re not discriminatory. That’s the delicate balance, and frequent cause of conflicts on various scales, where cultures are forced to integrate too quickly.
As for Trump being considered an autocrat, while he was in office he mostly used the options granted to him by the Constitution. But his main violation was his attempt to overthrow a democratic election, in an effort at autocracy. I’m not sure how that news was related to you, but his claims about election fraud on which he based his attempts, were similar to the baseless lies for which Putin is now known.
P.s.– i would add that Putin’s entire handling of the situation in Ukraine has been based on The Big Lie that he was only interested to assist those easternmost territories, when it’s now obvious he was stealthily planning all along to take over most or all of the country and install a puppet regime in Kyiv.
So his utter deceitfulness and cruel callousness should be obvious.
The very fact that he won’t tell the truth to his own people and is silencing the media and threatening with draconian punishment speaks volumes about this dangerous autocrat.
Now the Russian people will be suffering another pauperizing economic collapse –as in the early 1990s when 7 oligarchs quickly took HALF of Russia’s wealth for themselves and most of the population fell into destitution.
Still, unprovoked. Has the US made grave mistakes? Sure. Broken promises? Yes. But you can’t ignore that Putin is a murderous psychopath. No moral equivalency here.
No moral equivalency? Since Putin first came to power in 1999, the US and NATO have waged aggressive war in Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. It has also been conducting unlawful drone strikes in Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, and who knows where else in the world. I won’t bother with a body count, but my money is on the United States of America as the more murderous regime, Russia’s current military aggression in Ukraine notwithstanding.
Don’t forget Chechnya, Georgia, Syria, and Ukraine twice, plus the open “secret” that Russian troops have been supporting the separatists for the last 8+ years. So I am not sure the math adds up, especially when you add in the number of people (russian citizens) that the Russian government has killed. And this is just off the top of my head.
Bryce is not a Putin apologist. But i do think he and some other writers are underestimating just how dangerous Putin appeared to numerous leaders of former eastern bloc countries in the 1990s-2000s, and that’s why they were so desirous to join the EU and NATO.
Thanks for speaking up Timothy, the reactionaries tend to muddy the waters.
I am about as far away as possible from a “reactionary”, but my goodness, Bryce doesn’t half come across as a Putin apologist in these pieces he’s been doing for Fair recently. It’s fucking embarrassing.
You are writing from a remote perspective
The neighboring countries that got the Russian stick for centuries would disagree with your view.
Let’s not forget that Russia invaded also the communist alllied countries who were part of the Warsaw military pact: Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in1968.
Americans have NO concept of what it’s like to be subject to a military invasion.
Excusing Putin’s behavior is wrong. He supresses free speech and only cares about himself. He has enriched himself by stealing from the people of Russia. Every democracy in the world ahouldjoin together against authoritarian dictatorships. Freedom is sacred.
Wow, Richard Brooks!
I guess you don’t live in Texas and other GOP influenced states—as these states are against voting rights, and they certainly adore gerrymandering.
And too, they think they can own women’s bodies, and some new weird thing from people about Trans kids being made that way by their parents?????
Supressing of free speech, lying, stealing from the people—wow, that sounds just like Trump and his America.
Texas has a long way to go to become an authoritarian dictatorship. Limits on voting days cannot be compared to feeding radioactive poison or nerve agents to the opposing candidate before sending him to prison. I don’t agree with this author’s primary point that Putin has a right to have influence over neighboring countries. If he were interested in self determination as he claims, he would hold free and fair elections. The last one held in the “breakaway provinces” gave Zelenski 85% of the vote. A lot of Spanish speaking Texans don’t like the Republican governor, but Mexico doesn’t have the right to send in troops to help.
Well, B Hunter. In 1997 Clinton moved the NATO line which was never supposed to be moved— Per the Reagan / Gorbechev agreement. Clinton went all the way up to Russia’s border.
And too Us was supplying munitions to others—pretty much cat fishing Russia in the middle of a US game plan. I don’t blame Putin as he was very patient and kept asking RE that agreement.
I am amazed that the US is so horrified—after all GWBush attacked Iraq with his SHOCK and AWE, and that went on for 20 years.
As I’ve pointed out on Twitter, the NPR map you use to accompany this article contains serious errors, which you should correct.
Neither Finland nor Sweden are members of NATO. Ireland also is not a member.
Correction: I see the NPR map shows countries that joined NATO “and/or” the EU. I’ve deleted my tweet.
A lot of misinformation in your article. The promises of NATO not to expand are correct, but not much else.
In my opinion, the only fault of the west was it’s lackadaisical response to previous Russian aggresions.
I think you have to look no futher than Chechnya to see the lengths and methods Putin would go to rebuild the Soviet Union. Not to mention eliminating anyone he would see as a threat to that.
It’s not NATO on his borders that he fears so much, but democracies that won’t bend to his will.
As Bryce points out, it’s not just Putin that fears NATO, it’s pretty much the entire Russian polity.
Instead of playing armchair psychiatrist, try listening to what Putin is saying. Then take note of how many American policy makers understand his position and predicted this outcome.
If you fear a defensive alliance it is probably because you wish to be able to attack them. Why else would you fear NATO. The charter does nothing for a country that wasn’t attacked first. The only time in its history that Article 5 was activated was after 9/11, so i say again, why be frightened by a defensive alliance u less you covet what is theirs.
You understand that these characters only exist on paper? Agreements are on paper. Changes in infrastructure, in organisation, in weapon distribution, etc., they are all real.
In other words: East Bloc countries entering into NATO and arming themselves with US missiles would be physically able to nuke Russia into smithereens. If someone (the US) really needed to make it happen, it could happen. They’d sort out the diplomatic repercussions later.
We live in a world where it is by now reasonably public knowledge that there were, in fact, no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that ISIS only rose to prominence there as a direct result of the CIA arming anti-communist terrorists during the Cold War, and yet the US faces zero diplomatic or economic repercussions for invading Iraq, the death and destruction, and setting the country back decades.
Put yourself in the shoes of some Russian citizen living in Moscow and ask yourself if you would feel safe, knowing that the Western military alliance is right outside your door. Maybe peruse a history book detailing every single Western invasion attempt into Russia first, to get yourself in the mood.
As hard as it is to justify the 2nd Iraq invasion, let’s not conflate NATO with the US. NATO’s charter requires agreement from all of the members, and the only conflict they’ve ever engaged in so far is the response to 9/11 in Afghanistan.
Unless you’re suggesting that Eastern bloc countries that joined NATO would go rogue with missiles that could possibly positioned there under the nuclear sharing policy, they have dual key systems that are meant to avoid unilateral use.
So the amplification of any threat of an unprovoked attack of Russia by NATO has no basis in any member government’s policy, let alone all of them.
What multiple or even single Western invasion attempts into Russia are you imagining other than Napoleon and Hitler?
If the citizens of Russia were allowed access to the truthful information, other than the blatant and shameless lies that they must consume while their access to the outside world is blocked, it’s very likely that the vast majority would vote against Putin if he would allow free elections.
In fact, one of the grievances against Ukraine is that its flourishing democracy would appeal to, and inspire Russians to rebel or defect. Since they can’t completely repress all outside information, they still have to beat and arrest thousands of those protesters who have learned what is actually happening.
The only difference between US aggression and others is Media. US plays it better (or rather more devious). Otherwise US are tons of times more evil than anyone else.
I agree. Total misinformation.
Thank you, Bryce Greene, for this insightful, thorough analysis. The granular pieces with which I take issue are unimportant to the larger points made here and I appreciate this perspective being brought to the, so far, one-sided conversation about Russia’s war in Ukraine.
What ? This article total BS as Bryce is a Putin apologist. The key to understanding the thug Putin is his KGB history and adamant belief that Russia remains a great global power. Similar to his old USSR days, he believes current Russian sphere’s of influence should extend to all of the former Soviet republics. Just review Chechnya (and Georgia and now Ukraine, twice) to understand the lengths and methods Putin will go to rebuild the old Soviet Union. It’s not just the NATO countries on his borders that he fears. It’s the newer democracies (along with Finland, Sweden, etc) that won’t bend to his will. Next up is XI and Taiwan. Brush up on your Mandarin Bryce and Fair.org
Why can’t it be both?
Over the years quite a few notable people predicted Russia’s response to NATO expansion involving Ukraine.
https://mobile.twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1498491107902062592?s=20&t=rn5SAyIkbh9t4cW3hG8aXw
Putin made the choice to invade. Putin made the choice to bomb civilian targets. Putin is the one imposing a fifteen year prison sentence on any news reporter who reports the truth. Sure…let’s blame America. Perhaps your vision would clear if you pulled your head out of your ass.
He doesn’t blame America, he just says that America didn’t necessarily want to avoid this war, and explains why. Putin is definitely the one most at fault here, but let’s be honest, the US played it’s part in making it happen.
That seems like some vague blame casting effort with no basis for the claim that “the US played it’s part in making it happen.” . Is it because the US would not agree to deny the Ukraine’s right to petition to join NATO? Many don’t seem to understand that the US doesn’t govern NATO. It is a global treaty to which the US is one of now 30 parties, which specifically holds out the promise of membership to any European country able to fulfill specific obligations of membership.
Even if they became a member, is the mere presence of a NATO on a country’s border an imminent threat? Then why isn’t Switzerland, Austria, Serbia or Ireland saber rattling over the supposed danger? That’s only because, unlike Russia, those are non-aggressive, border respecting nations, not without their own internal strife, that don’t need to fear the retaliatory-only principle on which NATO is founded.
You really drank the Koolaid there Bim
What is the argument you have?
Seems to me the issue here is the meaning of “unprovoked.” The author lists various US policies that Russia doesn’t like- but Russia didn’t attack the US. It attacked Ukraine, but Ukraine had not attacked Russia. This seems to be what “Unprovoked” is meant here.
This article overall is an example of bad hot take internet “journalism.” While lecturing “Westerners” about their blinkered perspective, it actually denies all other countries any agency whatsoever and posits the US as the sole Prime Mover on the world stage.
Looks like you completely missed the point, and your perspective is, in fact, so blinkered that you can’t even see that much.
Hi Bryce,
I read this article and then perused your other works, which clearly illustrate a theme you often focus on. I agree it is essential to demonstrate how mistakes by US policymakers often have lasting negative implications and it is imperative to question why such errors are not thoroughly critiqued by major media outlets. Taking such a stance, however, should not permit the omission of numerous facts challenging your points and completely neglect the inclusion of any historical context as to why decisions leading up to today’s conflict were made. Rather, this article chose to take one side of an argument from the outset and proceeded to only mention or inflate those points supporting your opinion, all under the guise of a publication referring to itself as “fair.”
You mean one side of an argument as the mainstream media does? The whole point of FAIR is to illustrate bias in reporting, which it is doing when it points to omissions in the dominant narrative, rather than laying out the entire story, some or most of which has already been reported in the MSM. You refer to “the omission of numerous facts challenging your points,” and, yes, a thorough comprehensive dissertation on the history of NATO (and of Russia and Ukraine) in the post-Soviet era would be useful, but, again, beyond the scope of any average 500-word news article. Even an “explainer” wouldn’t be comprehensive. I think Bryce does an extraordinary job, all the more amazing from a college student.
Let’s be real, Putin did this because he thought he could, just like last time. He has said for years that Ukraine should be part of Russia. If you want to talk about going back on your word, you might want to mention the 1994 agreement where Russia, UK, and the US guarantee Ukrainian sovereignty in return for them returning 300+ nukes that were stationed there during their time as part of the USSR.
This whole NATO cover story is BS. Think about this, you feel threatened by someone so you decide to start a fight with someone else. Does that actually make any sense? It’s not like it changes any of the math in the article if Ukraine is NATO or not.
This article is gross, and the author is gross for writing it.
This article cherry picks its facts. It reads as if Russia was an innocent bystander while the evil US tried to expand its influence. No eastern European nation was forced to join NATO. They all asked to join. Why? Couldn’t be Russia’s genocidal war in Chechnya where they crushed an independent nation through mass murder of civilians scared he crap out of Russias neighbors? Could it be Russian tanks repeatedly violating the borders of the Baltic States and other constant violations of their sovereignty gave them reason to be afraid? Or maybe seeing Putin murder journalists and opposition candidates caused concern. None of this is mentioned in the article. Putin’s just a loveable guy put upon by the mean old USA anc what is happening in Ukraine is perfectly understandable and justified. RT couldn’t have written a better article.
This comment is utterly moronic. Unless you have valid constructive criticisms, why comment at all??
This article attempts to show an alternative view to what is being thrown at you by every possible media outlet out there. This isn’t a comprehensive analysis of the situation, but rather an attempt to look at things from another perspective. There are multiple sides to every story, why is this so hard to grasp??
Actually it’s an alternate universe that some folks – like the author – live in. The points or constructive criticisms Charles raised are entirely fair and valid. Its another perspective for sure as reality and facts are denied. The article cherry picks details and reads as if Russia was an innocent bystander while the big bad, evil American’s expanded its influence. In the real world no Eastern European country was forced to join NATO – they all begged – to join as the lunatic Putin has crushed other independent nations for over two decades now. How anyone could conclude whats happening in Ukraine is perfectly understandable is bazaar.
This comment is yucky. And the individual who wrote it is yucky.
Thank you for writing this. It’s a shame just how much leftists have immediately bought into neoliberal war propaganda and forgotten everything we’ve learned over the past few decades the second shit hits the fan. This has always been about two sides fighting over the sovereignty of a country with extremists trying to disrupt the democratic process from within along with tons of broken promises from us all. Just because Putin was the first to strike this time and is automatically worse because of that doesn’t exonerate the other side’s role in the history behind what caused it.
I will never support the Russian government, but I will also never support NATO.
I’d like America to take a look at GW Bush and his SHOCK and AWE in bombing Iraq one early morning in Iraq—and somehow for nearly 20 years America just didn’t just didn’t know what to do —except killing more Iraqis .
So Bush attacked Iraq—-because , well—who knows why. But 20 years of tearing up other nations– America has the nerve to forget about Bush tearing up the Middle East—because –who knows why he did. Oh, maybe because he could show up on the flight deck of a big ship wearing a flight suit and pretending he did something wonderful and saying “Mission accomplished.” What was that mission about anyway? What did it accomplish—oh unending war. America’s favorite activity.
America has no right to complain about Russia, as Russia certainly had a reason–since Clinton undid the Reagan Gorbachev agreement.
Two wrongs don’t make a right, this is self-fulling and made up dripple … There was no informal or formal agreement. Just some chatter when East and West Germany merged. In fact, when Ukraine agreed to surrender all of its nuclear weapons, there was implied factual security assurances by both the East and West. Imagine if they hadn’t fully removed the world’s 3rd or 4th third largest nuclear arsenal – Putin the thug – wouldn’t dare be invading Ukraine or stating nuclear weapons are on the table relative to this attack. No need to look behind the curtain here folks – just another apologist for Putin.
Brilliant analysis, thank you. Fair keeps its head when all around it are losing theirs.
Oligarch-owned western cabal’s DELUDED SELF-IMAGE is one of freedom & prosperity, which supposedly induced countries like Ukraine, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Romania etc to join, when they have all ‘joined’ through massive top-down bullying & coerced subjugation amounting to systems of slavery.
In ACTUAL-FACT western bullied-oligarch-controlled-nations have induced massive poverty in all subject-nations through our aggressive extractive-resource exploitation. Over 30 years since the 1st moneyed overthrow of many of the Soviet bloc, things aren’t getting better under western rule for average citizens. Western media is tightly censored. Institution, government, education, industry & commerce top-down compliance, becomes a fact of existence for the citizens of all western oligarch subject-nations. George Carlin ‘Education Sucks’ isn’t gonna get better because the owners, own you, land etc want to keep it as it is. https://youtu.be/KreMNfKqalg
Closer to Ukraine’s actual experience. How Ukraine’s Jewish President Volodymyr Zalensky made peace with Neo-Nazi paramilitaries to refute accusations of Nazi influence in Ukraine by Alexander Rubinstein & Max Blumenthal 2Mar’22 https://www.mintpressnews.com/ukraine-jewish-president-zelensky-made-peace-neo-nazi-paramilitaries/279862
Russia, China & the 100s of nations aligning with the Belt-&-Road initiative, realize the madness of western oligarch-induced SCHIZOPHRENIA war-mongering Self-Delusion compared with our slave-actuality. Humanity is at a juncture, at which we must reflect on ancient worldwide peaceful & productive systems of ‘indigenous’ (Latin ‘self-generating’) governance humanely aligned with productive Biosphere-based technology in abundant livelihood in an interdisciplinary CIRCLE-OF-LIFE. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/home/indigenous-circle-of-life
Wouldn’t it bea waste of a free press if it only printed things that Pawel wanted to hear? The Washington Post sets the party line and any deviation from that is traitorous…
The famed.chess player Garry Kasparov has an article in Chicago Tribune calling for more fracking to punish Russia. He says there’s “no point” in fixing the climate until Putin is defeated.
Well, I feel safe.
Please show me the treaty that details no NATO expansion. Guess what never done. So therefore the basis for your argument is based on a lie. NATO is not the reason for this. We know this also based on the speech that Putin gave where he only spent 1 minute talking about NATO and the rest of the time talking about the former USSR Glory Days.
This is pro Russian propaganda.
https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300259933/not-one-inch
In other words the US and her Western allies can do wrong. You consider it ok for NATO to encircle Russia with its weapons. A form of “unprovoked aggression” which the US flatly rejected in 1962. Remember Russia-Cuba and the US missile crisis? I can’t blame apologists for western propaganda machine: it can be irresistible.
Except that the Soviet Union had a history of invasions, by then into Finland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, where the US had demonstrated no such aggression.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Please go and educate yourself on all of the US aggression that has taken place around the world. This is why you can’t be taken seriously. Hahaha is right.
Hello. We know the playbook of the Soviet Union, how it treated other nations and it’s own people. This looks almost like a repeat. When the system fell thru, eastern nations happily recovered their identity and naturally joined the European project and also joined the Nato safety net. Maybe US cheer leaders abused their Russian counterparts with empty promises. So what? The Russians were not in a position to negotiate. Tough luck.
What we did wrong in ’90s was to abandon Russia and its satellites to their economic free fall. I hope when this is all finished, we push for dismantling the Federation and rebuild a competitive Confederation. It’s far too much for one man alone, who’s learned his tactics from a playbook of lies and subversion, and has no more vision (if ever he had one), apart now from saving himself and his entourage.
I despair of these truths reaching enough of us in the us and beyond to matter. But thank you so much
don’t be mistaken : Macron is not reliable! Read “le traitre et le néant” by Davet and Lhomme, in particular but not only, chapter 11 on the companies of which Alstom that he let sell abroad when the minister of economy that he was should have opposed it since the manufacture of the nuclear reactors of our submarines and those of the nuclear power plants are now under control of General Electric (USA). This would have allowed him to finance his 2017 presidential campaign thanks to contributions from the French staff of Alstom whose members received huge commissions. Moreover, why is Putin attacking Ukraine now, if not because there are French presidential elections in the spring of 2022 and he wants Macron in power. Normally Macron holds the key to trigger a nuclear response and the Prime Minister stands in for him if he is unavailable.So why did the two of them meet together at the Salon de l’Agriculture on February 26, 2022, when it only takes 5 minutes to send an H-bomb to Paris from the enclave of Kaliningrad? This shows that Macron is not even ready to respond to a Russian attack! Conclusion: the title of the above mentioned book is quite appropriate.
Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
There is a commentary on Open Democracy that seems much more insightful than the naval gazing promoted and opposed in response to Mr. Green’s piece.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/russia-ukraine-western-left-doesnt-understand-putin-or-the-world-outside-the-us/
It’s refreshing to see a blog like this, where nearly all the comments are informed and reasoned. While this article uncovers a lot of the history that may give some context to this conflict, the article lists a series of straw men that are false equivalents.
The informal statements that NATO would not expand beyond East Germany, offered in the 1990 Germany Unification agreement, were not part of the charter. The charter itself states “NATO membership is open to any “European state in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area”. The expectation that NATO would not need to expand any further was prompted by the emerging cooperation offered by Gorbachev’s glasnost reforms, and furthered by Yeltsin, and the glimmer of democracy that arose then.
To the contrary, in 1994, in exchange for the security agreements from the UK, USA and the Russian Federation, then led by Yeltsin, Ukraine agreed to surrender all of its nuclear arsenal in the Budapest Memorandum. Having fully removed the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal, and ceased all nuclear weapons programs, Ukraine proceeded on its path towards democracy with those security assurances, to now instead be absurdly accused by Putin of planning nuclear weapons and an attack on Russia.
Apologists for Putin who support his fiction that Ukraine has any thoughts of resuming nuclear weapons programs, or any invasion, are simply catering to his projection. He has proven to be the most blatantly oppressive tyrant since Stalin, for whom he has expressed admiration. Even the most generous interpretations of what could even remotely be called “provocation” for this genocide assumes that his paranoid delusions that someone may be planning to attack Russia justifies his aggression, where his factual history of attacking other bordering countries does not entitle all of the countries that neighbor him to eagerly seek the alliance of NATO. His blatant and shameless lies and suppression of information to his citizens further demonstrate the indefensibly of his acts.
Finally, there’s no history of, or policy for any NATO country to attack another country unprovoked by an actual assault, and NATO members would not support it if some rogue event occurred. There isn’t any history, since WWII, of any democracy attacking a country unprovoked to seize their territory as he has. Even if all of the former Russian territories wanted to join NATO, their desire for security would pose no threat to Russia’s existing borders. The fact remains that Putin simply wants to redraw those borders to satisfy his personal quest for undeserved power.
Wow, the above response from Bim are some of the most thoughtful, factual and insightful comments I have seen from any media source since Putin invaded the Ukraine. Hopefully Bryce Greene will not only read the comments but have some positive takeaways too.
Typo correction:
Even if all of the former Russian territories wanted to join NATO.
Even if all of the former Soviet territories wanted to join NATO.
Thanks Bryce, good article and a good thing you’re not at the Ukrainian border trying to get out of that mess, all the best, Mike Liston
Denying NATO membership for Ukraine should have been on the table. But let’s face it; Russia has been abusing Ukraine for centuries now, long before NATO existed. Putin wants to rebuild a Russian empire, and regardless of whatever the U.S. did, Putin would regard Ukraine as part of Russia. I’m a liberal Democrat, and I agree that the U.S. has done many terrible things. But even I get tired of the “blame the U.S. first” attitude that many liberals have, including this web site. This war is Putin’s fault, period.
Denying NATO membership for Ukraine should have been on the table. But let’s face it; Russia has been abusing Ukraine for centuries now, long before NATO existed. Putin wants to rebuild a Russian empire, and regardless of whatever the U.S. did, Putin would regard Ukraine as part of Russia. I’m a liberal Democrat, and I agree that the U.S. has done many terrible things. But even I get tired of the “blame the U.S. first” attitude that many liberals have, including this web site. This war is Putin’s fault, period.
A very good and balanced article. The complete failure of mainstream media is very disturbing. We are on the brink of nuclear war provoced by the west. Living in Germany the formula peace by arms, the constant flow of NATO arms to Ukraine doesn’t make me feel well at all. Public opinion is strong man speak. It’s like living in crazy land. The American empire is about to die and it’s system conform underlings are going full in. Not realizing that refugees will stay and potential nuclear fallout too.
Is your recommendation that anyone who threatens widespread atrocities should be granted whatever they seek? The policy of negotiating with terrorists has long been recognized as dangerous.
Depends on the definition of terrorist. The US’s history shows it could be considered a terrorist. Russia is being surrounded by a “defensive” alliance that is controlled by the US. The fact that our approval was required so other NATO countries could supply fighter jets to Ukraine and the US would replenish their contribution tells me who is in charge.
The history of U.S. aggression notwithstanding, there was no threat (implied or otherwise) by NATO regarding Russian territorial integrity. The choice by Putin, to invade another sovereign nation is an act of military aggression, and choosing to rationalize such violence as self-defense… is as ludicrous as claims made to justify the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.
As I posted prior, Russia’s response to NATO expansion was predicted by many . Prior to the invasion, Zalensky had commented on Joining NATO and reacquiring nukes. Many countries were sending weapons to Ukraine. Russia drew a red line and the west ignored it. I guess people expected Russia to stand by as they are surrounded by US influenced countries? As with most US diplomacy, the public only hears one side of the story.
The claim that Zelensky expressed an intent to reacquire nukes is pure fiction. His administration has expressed regret that they gave up their arsenal “for nothing” considering that they did so for the agreement of non-aggression and actual protection from Russia along with the US and UK.
It’s no surprise that, after witnessing Putin’s continued plans to expand into former Soviet territories, and his record of ruthless attacks on civilians, that Ukraine, along with nearly all of the bordering countries, are now interested in joining NATO.
As far as the US authority in it, they are one of the member votes that is required for the full consensus before a NATO action. That’s why there is a rigorous evaluation of any country that wants to join, and for which Ukraine is not yet approved, (though has likely since become more qualified after the abuse they’ve endured). It was expressly formed for the purpose of defending Europe and the US after the exhaustion of WWII in the face on continued USSR aggression, and was instrumental in stopping Stalin’s expansion at East Germany.
Unlike Russia’s history of aggression in Chechnya, Georgia, Syria and Crimea, and USSR’s attacks on Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan, the single conflict that was approved by NATO was the attack on Afghanistan in response to the attack on 9/11. There is no indication that NATO would initiate any violence in Russia if they were any closer than they are now.
Great realistic analysis of the situation, WITHOUT all the “U-S-A !! U-S-A !! WE‘RE NUMBER ONE! WE‘RE NUMBER ONE! “ exceptionalist hype that’s so tiresome and ultimately dangerous. It’s entries like this that keep me contributing to FAIR.
Excellent corrective to much predictably biased journalism trading in little but hypocritical moralism and jingoism by proxy. To explain is not to justify, notwithstanding the platitudinous bleating of war-fevered liberals.
What did you expect Biden to say? “Sorry we forced you to invade your neighbor”. This whole line of reasoning seems rather naive to me. And don’t leave out Roosevelt for provoking the Japanese with the oil embargo and making them uncomfortable with our Pacific Fleet in their backyard. Or the Europeans forcing Hitler to invade Poland to recover unfairly taken territory. Or even Lincoln for provoking the slave states into starting a civil war. Where do you stop?
Very relevant comparisons. Socioeconomic policy disputes should not be provocations to violence.
The foreign policy and liberal interventionism of “the one exceptional nation” has been a disaster since 1953. The U.S. insists on pulling the strings in the puppet show, and the Ukrainians will be the losers. One can ride principles right into a thermonuclear holocaust. In the end its about understanding human nature and negotiating from a position of mutual respect. Putin rose to power because we tried to make Russia a neo liberal economic makeover project while it was on its knees, weak and vulnerable. But the last time I checked, Mr. Putin was the president of a proud and consequential people…and a human being. It’s not about Putin’s personality or propensities. It’s the fact that he heads a nation with thousands of nuclear warheads. You don’t denigrate, marginalize, ignore and blow off someone like that. You maintain open lines of communication and maybe, just maybe, the carrot might outperform the stick. It’s not “giving in” or compromising principles; it’s being practical. Neutrality for a nation is not a death sentence. But the U.S. just can’t stand for a new democracy like Ukraine to be non-aligned militarily. Though half a world away, Ukraine must be in our sphere of influence. You can persist in this course of action, but there will always be–and are consequences. Remember that Putin once asked to be part of the European security arrangement: NATO. We told him to take a hike. To ignore human nature, to project onto others what you want to see in your cocoon of magical thinking is a recipe for disaster.
What would those carrots be to an autocrat who unilaterally claims authority over another sovereign nation? Is some concession warranted simply because he feels threatened, without any evidence of a threat? That’s an exceedingly generous interpretation of any stand your ground principle, and would lead to further injustices.
The poverty level of Russians did improve following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The glasnost reforms opened their economy to global trade with Yeltsin’s limited embrace of democracy and capitalism. Then Putin did preside over the development of much of their petrol economy’s global reach. His first 12 years, as either President and Premier, could be considered a success for Russians. But when democracy no longer granted him the power to which he’d grown accustomed, and had personally enriched him, he shifted to an autocracy that no longer allowed free elections and imprisoned and even attempted to murder his opponents.
In the scenario you describe, the carrot would be the hope of sparing the thousands of innocent civilians his troops are now brutally murdering as they attempt to escape the war zones, in exchange for surrendering their country, much the way Chamberlain thought the surrender of Czechoslovakia would appease Hitler.
The fact that Putin is armed, dangerous and brutal is no cause to retreat from confrontation with him, as that battle line will simply continue to expand. Contrary to the apologists who offer the excuse that he somehow feels threatened by a mainly agricultural country with a military that couldn’t imagine a way to attack Russia even if they had a reason, there is no rationale for his attack, other than to burnish what he alone would consider his reputation as a despot.
His tyrannical temperament and threats of extreme violence do not warrant the denial of another country’s right to seek the protection of an alliance, or of that alliance to adhere to its guidelines in admitting them if they deem it appropriate. Instead it warrants his removal from office, which is gaining favor of an increasing, however violently repressed, percentage of his country’s population. The slaughter he is committing in pursuit of this vain and pointless expansion will only serve to exclude Russians from the global economy and society until he’s gone.
Yea, your right. So lets just appease the Putin the dangerous, power hungry dictator. History show how well that works out, right ? Talk your head out of the sand comrade.
This is the first balanced account I have read about the lead-up to this war which at so many points could have been avoided.
It’s so important to look at how diplomacy failed, how our leaders failed to keep us out of this war.
Putin asked for these 8 things:
https://ibb.co/wSZhqGV
Note Article 1; it RANKLED Blinken/Biden/Neocons. They dropped talks.
Do they know, it’s already US legislation to provide just such a security clause to Israel? EVERY US weapon sold, must NOT infringe on Israel’s national security. This is US Law on the books. Right now.
PUtin gave his rationale for Article 1, as pointed out by Bryce, highlighted here:
“International documents expressly stipulate the principle of equal and indivisible security, which includes obligations not to strengthen one’s own security at the expense of the security of other states….”
That’s useful to list the terms the Putin has requested. Here’s the complete text of Article 1:
“Article 1
The Parties shall guide in their relations by the principles of cooperation, equal and indivisible security. They shall not strengthen their security individually, within international organizations, military alliances or coalitions at the expense of the security of other Parties.
The Parties shall settle all international disputes in their mutual relations by peaceful means and refrain from the use or threat of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
The Parties shall not create conditions or situations that pose or could be perceived as a threat to the national security of other Parties.
The Parties shall exercise restraint in military planning and conducting exercises to reduce risks of eventual dangerous situations in accordance with their obligations under international law, including those set out in intergovernmental agreements on the prevention of incidents at sea outside territorial waters and in the airspace above, as well as in intergovernmental agreements on the prevention of dangerous military activities”
—
There are several problems with that article.
The first problem is that the US doesn’t have authority to deny a country the right to apply to be a NATO ally, which is the basic request of the 1st paragraph.
Then it’s not clear how denying Ukraine NATO membership would even accomplish anything other than facilitate Putin’s continued attempt to capture it. Maybe this agreement could have been, or may still be a means of placating him. But it’s now hard to expect Ukraine, and nearly all the rest of Russia’s bordering countries to not urgently pursue NATO membership after this demonstration of disregard for a peaceful population.
As it’s clear that NATO has no intention of attacking Russia, this only looks like assurance that they can continue to attack Ukraine, and then other former Soviet territories, without the defense from NATO in the future.
Would they then honor the agreement that:
“The Parties shall settle all international disputes in their mutual relations by peaceful means and refrain from the use or threat of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
The Parties shall not create conditions or situations that pose or could be perceived as a threat to the national security of other and Parties.”
That seems like subjective language that wouldn’t change their ability for “exercises” along the borders, and provides a lot of latitude for what “could be perceived as a threat to the national security of other and Parties”, especially since Ukraine manged to cause that perception while they had no designs on Russia whatsoever. Then they can rely on the absence of NATO in their future pursuits of other neighboring countries, where the slippery part of that agreement seems to allow Putin to simply claim that Russian speakers, who are spread out all over the former territories, can justify an attack in their defense.
WOW, you sure have all the facts sorted. Not is the single one correctly though. NATO’s sole purpose is the destabilization of the Russia sphere, what other purpose do they serve? The agreement was supported by virtually every country in Europe, thus should have been the baseline of decisions made from there on but was ignored like all US agreements are when it suits them. Your obvious bias by ignoring every bit of this article is astonishing, all the facts you need is there still you refuse to see the obvious, I suggest politics as a career option you should do well there.
I think you’re trying to argue my statements, but don’t present anything factual. Are you saying NATO wasn’t formed to counter Russian aggression after WWII? Then, how or where was the NATO agreement ignored?
If you’re referring to the support of the idea that no further expansion was needed after the Unification of Germany, that was not codified into the charter, which remains unchanged. There was acknowledgement that the Gorbachev and Yeltsin reforms limited the need for NATO, even prompted the consideration of dissolving it. But Yeltsin, who was more focused on rebuilding Russia than attacking Europe, said he understood and agreed to Poland’s membership. But Putin intention to restore the iron curtain, and all of the concerns that were present before it was removed, are applicable again. It will take years for Russian to recover any role in the global community, assuming Putin’s replacement is not another tyrant.
Obviously, professional disinformation officer is a career option for you.
Obviously comrade Bradley facts are just a distraction to you in your role as a professional Russia disinformation officer. BTW I thought RT stopped paying their employees?
Sammy,
Are you speaking of the exact same RT assets I previously denigrated in a prior thread, for failing to condemn Putin’s invasion?
SEE: https://fair.org/home/foreign-agents-designation-causes-media-cold-war/
Maybe you should do a bit more research about the authors who post on this site… or at least attempt to comprehend the meaning of the statements they choose to post.
Who knows, maybe it gets lost in translation?
Do svidaniya, numbnuts!
Very well documented, nice work! Factually correct and nicely put together.
Mr. Putin has no doubt looked on with more than a little interest at or regime change attempts and successes in recent years–Iraq, Libya, Syria, Venezuela–not to mention our long history of attempted to decide for other countries who their leaders should be. You may see Putin as a Marvel comics villain, in which case you may have a career as a Hollywood screen writer. But reality is always more complex. Caricatures only serve to further division and acrimony. They do not promote peace.
The time for the carrots is probably past. Whether or not one agrees that NATO and missiles on the border of Russia constitutes a real threat is beside the point. The fact is that the Russian people–not just Mr. Putin–PERCEIVE it as an existential threat. And the reckless rhetoric and irresponsible efforts to demonize Russia and Putin over the last 20 years might, just might, mind you, have something to do with their perceptions.
Knowledge of human nature and psychology surely must have SOME utility for international relations, but apparently, no. Fear is a primal thing, and easily turns into paranoia. Maybe we should have listened to what Mr. Putin was telling us on multiple occasions over the last 2 decades about what the Russian people perceived as important.
But to acknowledge the fears of of the Russian people as their country was, first, beset by carpetbaggers, then chosen for the new whipping boy in the international order would have been to give respect to the opinions and views of other human beings. It’s always the stick; my way or the highway.
Well, we got the highway. And it could be a short road to Hell.
People should quit with the Chamberlain narrative. It betrays a dismal understanding of history.
To address:
“Whether or not one agrees that NATO and missiles on the border of Russia constitutes a real threat is beside the point. The fact is that the Russian people–not just Mr. Putin–PERCEIVE it as an existential threat.”
1) NATO missiles are not on the border of Russia and, prior to this conflict, there was not any imminent support for the inclusion of Ukraine. Also, it seems to be lost on many that even in the circumstance where NATO armaments are shared with NATO countries, their use still requires the consensus from NATO.
2) What the Russian people are -allowed- to perceive is the blatant propaganda that doesn’t even admit that Russia is firing missiles at Ukraine, let alone targeting civilians, even shelling and shooting at those attempting to flee the war zones.
You must be aware that to even name this attack a war can be penalized with prison for 15 years. That’s why all non-controlled news organizations have had to evacuate Russia. Those who are able to get access to actual news, or even talk to or video chat with Ukrainian relatives, who become aware of the offenses, are beaten and arrested when they protest, no matter how young or old. Any bliss from the ignorance that Putin now imposes will soon be replaced by shame from the awareness of the atrocities Putin continues to commit in Russia’s name on an innocent population, who’s only offense is preferring a democratic to an autocratic government.
There’s no level of imagined threat that Putin can announce to his population that could justify the level of brutality he has imposed on Ukraine. We can only hope the many creative, peaceful and productive citizens of Russia will soon escape the yoke of a tyrant who is shaming their country.
Excellent analysis of the current situation. Europe, particularly Germany should have welcomed the new Russia after its Soviet demise to cooperate, culturally, economically and to help this new nation to successfully transit from Communism to Capitalism. Instead the evil doers, particularly from the USA pushed to install a weak, alcoholic Yeltsin, who allowed the “Western Invaders” to set up shop in Russia (Coca Cola, McDonald, etc.) these companies made lots of money and instead of reinvesting it in Russia they repatriated these funds back to the West almost bankrupting Russia in the late nineties. It is the arrogant hegemony of the US who wanted to expand more and more into the East and humiliate the Russians at every corner. Now the US has to deal with Communism in its own borders and the Chinese are forging ahead and will overtake this nation that has brought so much suffering and exploded two nuclear devices over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a monstruous crime, then displacing the French in Vietnam, using weapons of mass destruction (agent orange) causing a war under false pretense as was the case in the Middle East, creating worldwide terrorism and falsely accused Sadam to possess Weapons of Mass Destruction. Sadly, the US is a dying Paper Tiger and has seen its best years long ago.
I don’t see how you can seriously argue that the genocide that Putin is committing in Ukraine in Russia’s name, is in any way justified by the arrival of global Western brands that were welcomed after the austerity Russians suffered during the Communist regime. Those companies, invited after Gorbachev’s perestroika reforms, no doubt profited from the Russian market, but also contributed to the local economies, and were not the cause of the economic disparities that emerged in the later 90s
Yeltsin was a popular figure who was responsive to the causes of the communities he represented during his ascent through the political system. He was elected by landslides to the offices he occupied, and was endorsed by Brezhnev to become First Secretary, after being recommended by the person who he would replace. While those in Western politics may have approved of his support of private businesses for the first time in Russia, he was the first democratically elected President in Russian history rather than pushed by “evil doers” from the USA or anywhere else.
It is true that the reforms he promoted soon spiraled out of control as his administration didn’t seem to grasp the economic measures needed after the sea change introduced by privatization and removal of price control, which led to monopolies, inflation, and wealth inequities, and his progressing alcoholism didn’t help. In fact, soon after being appointed by Yeltsin, Putin was instrumental in reigning in that economy. His first decade or so as President and Premier were responsible. It was only after he grew an excessive sense of entitlement that he overthrew the democracy that helped reduce the poverty rate in his initial terms.
Rather than allow the fair election of his replacement in 2012, and retiring as an esteemed political leader, he instead embraced autocracy and began his quest for self glorification and enrichment, and now the reversal of all of Russia’s progress as a member of the global economy in the past 20 years. He has become a pariah who is deliberately murdering civilians, many of whom are relatives of citizens of his own country, and stained Russia’s stature in the world, with no cause or purpose whatsoever.
We can agree and condemn Putin’s actions. But how different would the situation be if we had gently and generously welcomed The Russian Federation into the European security and economic order?
Well, how different would the Middle East be now if we hadn’t strangled Iran’s baby democracy in its cradle in 1953?
Putin was Yeltsin’s protege and handpicked successor, but he had no intention of allowing the kleptocracy under Yeltsin to continue pro forma. Of course, he didn’t stop the kleptocracy, just Russianized it. That outcome could have been different, too. Part of the problem is that Russia has never HAD a democracy, and the Russian people were quite unprepared for the enormous changes that followed the breakup of he USSR. Putin, as a typical strongman, was able to mitigate the damage and restore some sense of pride and consequence to the Russian people. It’s pretty clear that Yeltsin was “our man,” to quote Victoria Nuland re. Yatsenyuk during the U.S. supported 2014 coup d’etat. And it is a fact that the U.S. bought Yeltsin a second term.
My point is that there is a clear chain of causation that we should, indeed, must, recognize for how we got into this awful situation. And in this the U.S. and its NATO allies have acted in a foolish and reckless manner. We didn’t “make” Putin invade Ukraine. That’s on him.
But everywhere along the way we acted with clear animosity toward Russia and sent unambiguous signals that, in the manner of high school cliques, they were out of the “in” group and we would not work with their de facto leader out of some vague principle that escapes me even now. Hubris, folly, magical thinking R’ Us. If historian Barbara Tuchman had lived longer she could have updated her wonderful book The March of Folly and devoted the whole second half of the new version to the USA.
Exploring your points to see how they can be applied:
1) “But how different would the situation be if we had gently and generously welcomed The Russian Federation into the European security and economic order?”
That has an appealing tone, but what exactly does it entail? I believe some genuine alliances were forged under Gorbachev and Yeltsin. Yeltsin even seemed intent on pursuing a full detente, democracy, a certain level of private capitalism, and even denuclearization. He in fact understood, had no problem with, and felt no threat from Poland’s acceptance into NATO during his term, and had no cause feel threatened by it.
I agree that is was a culture shock for a civilization that had never had self determination in it’s entire history to be suddenly thrust into a democracy that entailed many choices they may not have had the experience to decide. I don’t know if there was any attempt to include advisors from other countries, but in retrospect, Yeltsin was a brief gateway into a golden age for Russia, but too brief because: a) He needed help in opening up the floodgates to capitalism, and couldn’t manage the runaway greed, deceit and as you call it kleptocracy, that it invariably comes with it. b) His progressive alcoholism was never properly treated, and eventually undermined his ability to address his mounting challenges. I don’t know if he ever reached out, or if he was ever denied assistance for either of those challenges, but we can only imagine how productive and creative Russia could have been with a thriving middle class and a role in the global economy.
2) how different would the Middle East be now if we hadn’t strangled Iran’s baby democracy in its cradle in 1953?
I understand that’s a fair example of regime change by external governments turning out badly, but don’t see where it has a parallel with Putin and Russia. Based on Putin’s actions, I don’t think the world could do worse than another Stalin.
3) the U.S. and its NATO allies have acted in a foolish and reckless manner. We didn’t “make” Putin invade Ukraine. That’s on him.
But everywhere along the way we acted with clear animosity toward Russia and sent unambiguous signals that, in the manner of high school cliques, they were out of the “in” group and we would not work with their de facto leader out of some vague principle that escapes me even now.
Can you be more specific in what the U.S. and NATO have done that is foolish and reckless? The NATO charter has been in existence, unchanged, since 1949.
Apart from the brief Gorbachev, Yeltsin and early Putin window, over the centuries, since Russia has always been ruled by a Czar, tyrant, dictator or autocrat, who tends to act more unilaterally without all of the baggage of government, they have a history of attacking their neighbors.
NATO was formed for the purpose of protecting the WWII weary EU and America from the threats that Stalin still posed after that war. NATO has no history as a non-retaliatory aggressor, or even an aggressor apart from the response to the 9/11 attack, and isn’t at all impulsive, with the requirement for agreement of all, now 30 members.
I’m not aware of any official who’s unwilling to work with Putin, and even support him, assuming it doesn’t entail enabling the violent seizure of a population against their will.
In his early days, Putin was friendly with U.S. Presidents. While they both remained guarded, he had a pleasant relationship with George W(43). He and and George W and George H.W. Bush(41) went fishing together. Putin had very kind words about George H.W. when he died in 2018. The relationship with the U.S. became strained when he decided to help support Assad’s regime in Syria, which was a contrary position to the U.S. so that relationship got tougher. But apart from either countries interference in foreign affairs, I think that, within its current borders, the U.S. maintains an interest in a prosperous Russia.
The suffering and misery that Russia went through in the aftermath of the breakup of the Soviet Union is reflected in the stark and rapid decrease in life expectancy, something scarcely seen outside a war zone or a major famine. At the time, the IMF (read United States) insisted on the usual neoliberal “adjustments” as a condition for loans: rapid privatization of services and resources, decline in social services (read health care), austerity. Mr. Yeltsin presided over this.
A 1998 article from JAMA.
“Results: Age-adjusted mortality in Russia rose by almost 33% between 1990 and 1994. During that period, life expectancy for Russian men and women declined dramatically from 63.8 and 74.4 years to 57.7 and 71.2 years, respectively, while in the United States, life expectancy increased for both men and women from 71.8 and 78.8 years to 72.4 and 79.0 years, respectively
Conclusion: The striking rise in Russian mortality is beyond the peacetime experience of industrialized countries, with a 5-year decline in life expectancy in 4 years’ time. Many factors appear to be operating simultaneously, including economic and social instability, high rates of tobacco and alcohol consumption, poor nutrition, depression, and deterioration of the health care system. Problems in data quality and reporting appear unable to account for these findings. These results clearly demonstrate that major declines in health and life expectancy can take place rapidly.”
Under the reforms of Mr. Putin, life expectancy had risen to 66.4 and 77 years for men and women by 2018, pre-pandemic.
This may help to explain, only partially, Mr. Putin’s popularity among Russian people so far, despite rigging the political system for himself.
Just sayin’. Time will tell whether the Russian people stay with him, but there ain’t gonna be no regime change. We could have had an open and trusting relationship (trust but verify, as they say) with Putin and the Russian people. The “masters of the universe” chose otherwise.
Now we can bid adieu to arms control agreements, mutual action on climate change, joint social and scientific endeavors and resting easy at night. Thanks, all you policy makers in the halls of power. Well done! Now go back to your game of Risk, Axis and Allies or whatever.
Yes, Yeltsin had no chance to introduce free market capitalism in measures, and the stampede got past him. The soaring inflation and uneven distribution of wealth caused a surge in poverty that demoralized everyone. When he appointed Putin, Putin had a historical perspective that helped him apply some level of regulation to stabilize the economy, which he managed to do for his first decade or so. This did improve the quality of life and life span as a result. Those were all improvement that contributed to, and benefited from Russia’s growing role in the world economy.
Then the power and influence that he wielded, and the flood of money from the newly privatized industries diverted him from leadership to personal enrichment and self glorification. Now his personal indulgences are overshadowing his past achievements.
Since you have access to the Internet, you must be able to see the atrocities he has directed the Russian military to commit. As everyone in the free world, and those in his country, who manage to get an uncensored glimpse of this senseless brutality against innocent civilians and children can see, these crimes, committed in the name of Russia will cause all the strides made in the past 20 years to be undone. Nearly all of the UN members who voted, 141, except for 5 countries also ruled by dictators, condemned the aggression. No one, including the Ukrainians, want Russia to govern Ukraine, and if they knew what a stain on Russia this senseless assault would cause, no Russian would want it either.
Maybe you should stop posting in a foreign language… and posing as an “American.”
Did anybody else notice there is a Russian asset named “Will” in this thread? Just asking.
It seems they are also appearing under a few other names here, and seem to have dispatched bloggers to promote propaganda on other sites too. It’s clear that Russia is actively promoting blatant lies, and a fully alternate reality.
To this day, Lavrov claims they have not even invaded Ukraine, not only to their captive audience, but even in the public, uncensored forums, such as today in Turkey, and elsewhere in the past, and no doubt in the future, along with the efforts of other propagandists who are trying to defend the indefensible.
Excellent article. And in my opinion, pretty much nails it
As usual, FAIR paints the whole tapestry, not just the parts that fit the current (and usually wrong) narrative. In order to maintain ever-growing military budgets, the U.S. needs permanent enemies. Read Gore Vidal’s essay: “Permanent War for Permanent Peace”. When needed to justify massive military increases, the military/industrial/intelligence complex resurrects some favorite enemies: Venezuela, Cuba, China, the French, Putin and sundry enemies du jour. And it works. Like Charlie Brown, Congress always falls for the Pentagon BS.
So you’re claiming the US started this war?
Worth a read. https://westcountryvoices.co.uk/into-the-grey-zone-why-are-so-many-progressives-falling-for-putins-propaganda/?fbclid=IwAR2WR9HXpsES5aywkcvrgmO1U3C1ft84eGU-ubdeVZqKuuvo_4P2RHCMwYc
Well researched, and even speaks to The Grayzone article that an earlier post offered in a somewhat rambling effort to claim that recent EU applicants were coaxed to choose the West over Russia through bullying, coerced subjugation and enslavement.
There have been struggles for power in the past that haven’t had clear claims on either side. It’s possible there are people or populations that want authoritarian leaders, and democracy shouldn’t be forced on anyone. There are also often murky backroom tradeoffs in many modern democracies, which may account for how narrow the margins are in many elections around the world.
The logical contortions, exaggeration and fiction offered as fact in this article and those of other Putin apologists, in an effort to justify these barbaric, murderous crimes against an innocent, fledgling democracy, because they wouldn’t submit to unjustified demands, are just implausible.
His claims that Ukraine’s military, or some later alliance with NATO, pose a threat to him, now even that Ukraine is threatening some form of bio-warfare, which, as shown in Syria, should be a warning of his attempt at a pretext for his own use of them, are all simply efforts to disguise, as a threat to the population, what is his more personal problem. That is that all of his censorship may not prevent Russians from recognizing the benefits of the democracy enjoyed by their Ukrainian neighbors and even relatives, which could, prompt a Russian uprising for free elections and undermine his grip on the population.
His effort to keep his grip on power has resulted in brutal attacks on defenseless civilians that are simply trying to flee war zones, and other helpless non-combatants including a children’s hospital, schools and purely residential neighborhoods. His sense of entitlement has threatened even more severe attacks on a peaceful population.
Even though such an assault would be criminal against any peaceful population, the bravery and sensitivity on display by those working to protect their families further highlights their honor. That’s as opposed to the Russian administration, who evidently duped many of their soldiers into joining the fight by telling them they were only going to perform exercises on the border, and still denies they’re engaged in war as they beat and arrest protesters, or arrest those who just refer to this as a war, who have seen past their media repression and learned the facts.
His isolation is deserved. It only remains to be seen if the Russian population must endure it with him as this conflict couldn’t be a more stark contrast between the innocent and guilty.
You must be getting paid to post these essays. I KNOW the truth though and you are using facts that are convenient to propping up your argument (in reality these facts are the result of crooked and undemocratic finagling) while trying to argue against and doubt some very truthful claims. If I was not alive and actually living in Ukraine during those times, you may have me fooled. Alas, I know better. You proselytize the viewpoint of the minority of the Ukrainians in general. But thanks to your oppressive helpers in the form of neo nazi thugs, the Ukrainians who oppose your views are suppressed. They don’t want to be maimed or disappeared.
This is by far the best article I have read on US responsibility for ‘Putin’s war.’ Congratulations!
One of the best articles I have read in recent times – well-explained, well-researched, and laser-focused on its subject matter. I only wish journalism of this quality and balance was still evident in our TV and print media.
Everyone needs to read and understand this when it comes to the causes of world events. They are rarely as they seem.
Except that there’s no evidence whatsoever that Ukraine, or NATO, has posed any military threat to Russia.
Latvia and Estonia have been NATO members directly on the Russian border for nearly a decade, along with other nearby members, including Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and others, without any consequence to Russia. Russia, on the other hand, has used military force to invade Georgia, Tajikistan, Chechnya, and more, along with past attacks on Ukraine.
This pretense of being threatened by Ukraine ever joining NATO is the fully transparent effort to just try to ensure they remain vulnerable to Russia’s recurring efforts to impose Putin’s rule on them.
Bravo!
There are surely not many readers from Germany here, but it might still be a good idea to show how the conflict was treated by a german – (rather an exception in our mainstream media, just like it would be in the USA) “Kabarett” called”Anstalt”. The name comes from a self-ironical joke – the people who show politics from a left perspective toy with “living inside a lunatic asylum”. This way you are free to ask provocative and good questions.
In 2014 this “Anstalt” broadcasted – against the NATO-mainstream in nearly all of our media- critical comments just like you mention here. And of course this all has a long, long history. Western influence began with Clinton, but it went on with hawks like Sweden’s Carl Bildt (a good friend of the Clintons) or Merkel. The old “Fuck the EU” by Victoria Nuland for example meant this, rarely told at the time: Merkel wanted “Klitsch” as leader of the Ukraine – Klitschko, now mayor of Kyiv. But the USA, Obama and Nuland, wanted “Yats” (Jazenjuk). Of course “Yats” won, and he had to resign later, I remember some corruption… And of course USA or Germany denied of “having any influence”…. this was ridiculous, of course.
But in 2022 after the horrible war Russia under Putin began – the same “cabaret” the ANSTALT (the term “Kabarett” means more – like if it included fables of old Aesop or from all times where the powerless told stories in disguise to attack the dictators, leaders….) made a show – against Putin. Against his ugly lies. His pompousness. His lie this would be no war, while he is killing people in Ukraine. The “comedians” mad a show against his cruel war. Putin is breaking international law (just like NATO and USA and Europe broke international law when invading Yugoslavia). He ended all hope in a time with not so many weapons. It is Putin who did that.
I think the horrors Putin started are horrible. Yes, the USA and also Europe played their strategic games and want power and markets. The old story. And of course the media forget all the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and more.
But the horrible Putin now is the reason for Germany, for example, to add 100 billions of Euro (!) more for the german army. This “more weapons, more weapons!” is a wish of the german “green” party, who still pretends to be on the left. But it has nothing to do with the US green party, in Germany we got in fact nothing else than a market-radical green party who thinks “we are the good ones”, and wants “wars for humanity”. (Samuel Moyn wrote a very good book about this).
So – Putin started this new arms-race now. And he kills. His horrible, ugly war will in fact lead to far more arms-races, billions and billions will be spent, killing the climate as we knew it even more. This should never have happened. There is no justifying possible, for this war – and I know, you don’t justify this war, dear Bryce Greene.
Putin and Lawrow are horrible killers. Yes, maybe he wanted peace in 2001 and yes – we will never know now. NATO and USA provoke where ever they can, we all know this (of course the mainstream press like the small Berlin Taz or huge NYT don’t know that.
But with a horrible government like this in Russia it is clear that more countries – like it is Ukraine’s wish – want to join NATO! The horrible leader who kills and started a new delight for the ugly weapon industry is nobody else than Putin and his government. The share holders in our capitalist times already are happy – – it is disgusting. And it is the work of Vladimir Putin.
The “Anstalt” of March 2022 ended with the hope of a russian comedian that the people would fight Putin in Russia – I have no idea if there is a chance. And a comedian from Ukraine asked for more weapons from Germany, USA, NATO. All of this is what follows after Putin’s war.
The notion that the US and NATO is somehow responsible for Rusia invading Ukraine is preposterous. Ukraine, in case you forgot, is a sovereign nation free to associate with any other nation or organization of her choosing and Rusia has no business dictating foreign policy to a foreign nation even if it is one that borders with her. In fact, the invasión proves Ukraine’s fear of Russia were more than justified.
… as free as Cuba was in 1962 to allow Soviet troops and rockets in its souvereign borders!
Very good.
Just one point.
You mention ‘far right extremists once.
They are Nazis.
An integral part of the Ukraine government and army (Azov Battalion) who are responsible for the attacks on Russian Ukrainians in Donbass.
Russians basically have two demands.
No NATO and No Nazis in Ukraine.
Not too hard to understand either.
Amen! The Neocon narrative prevents ANYONE in the western media from saying this.
Interesting timing. For the record, Putin and Zelensky are grads of Klaus Schwab’s WEF Young Global Leaders Program. They get their marching orders from Klaus and the Gang. If the Covid Plandemic was major step one of the Great Reset, this Russia/Ukraine/NATO debacle is major step 2. Notice, little to no coverage of the ”virus.” Zero coverage of the deaths and injuries from the jab in the MSM. Same for coverage of The Peoples’ Convoy, etc. War makes a good cover distraction, while furthering the Agenda 21 and 2030…” you will own nothing, and you will be happy.” All the rest is smoke, mirrors and Kabuki Theatre!
Thanks for the comedy routine, I really enjoyed it.
Bradley:
I don’t understand and I can’t fathom because its outside of my frame of reference (or my ego just protecting me from uncomfortable yet obvious realities), so therefore I will call it comedy as a coping mechanism
So “bob,” you admit that you post comments under different screen names?
Absolutely! Spot on.!
The mass media is a poor place for people to learn about foreign policy. I didn’t begin to understand what has been done in my name and with my money until I studied other sources.
Yeah, well, Russia made promises to Ukraine, which now must regret not being the nuclear power it was after the Soviet Union collapsed. Giving Russia its nukes in exchange for promises of Ukraine sovereignty is a decision that was an honorable one and one that, naturally, lying Putin has clearly violated completely. This article is long and detailed and missing the entire point.
Maybe you could write more than three sentences in order to explain your position?
As far as Ukraine goes, the invasion is UN-provoked. What did Ukraine do to Russia? Where did they attack? A clear majority of Ukrainians want more engagement with the west.
Do you have proof, evidence, or some other factual basis for your assertion?
This didn’t age well.
Friend,
Ukraine provoked Russia by bombing Donbass and Luhansk from which majority of people living there are Russians.
US provoked Russia by supporting the 2014 Maidan coup to overthrow the government from a pro-russian one to a pro-west one.
Ukraine wants to join NATO. Russia said that Ukraine must never do that and should stay neutral. NATO head have said that the alliance wants to integrate Ukraine in the future.
Provokig Russia at every corner, I believe. :/
I am not sure Putin is a member of the WEF anymore. I believe he had a virtual meeting at one of their Davos gatherings and said he didn’t agree and it only helped 1% of the population. Of course that could have been staged too. I have (for the first time in my life) started paying attention to politics (especially geopolitics) and from the reading I have been doing the last month…. I believe this is very very complicated to understand. The narratives each country are pushing makes it even more difficult.
Back to the WEF though, the Great Reset is no longer a conspiracy theory. When their leader writes a book called “COVID 19-The Great Reset” – it’s real. Admittedly I have no way of knowing if this is legitimately in motion, but the public videos of the WEF (especially Yuval Noah Harari) are pretty disturbing. read their Manifesto https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_First40Years_Book_2010.pdf and then also check out Wikipedia’s entry on “Club of Rome”.
Nice work, Bryce.
This is the best breakdown I’ve seen yet showing that this invasion of Ukraine absolutely was provoked.
The assertion that NATO promised not to expand eastward it false, as is the entire argument of this article.
This is the Kremlin’s propaganda warmed over for the left.
Bryce, I can send you all of the information necessary for you to understand how you are being manipulated by agents of the Kremlin in a war of disinformation.
Please reach out to me: p.grajnert@gmail.com
It is a hefty reading list. But if you are someone after the truth, you can find out why your article is factually wrong by massive omissions and distortions that emanate from the Kremlin.
Paul Grajnert
Beverly Shores, IN
To be honest after reading all that, it sounds like the Russian invasion of Ukraine was justified, at least more justified then some of the countries we have invaded. There is a big difference between someone who starts trouble (a bully) and someone pinned against the wall defending itself. We seem to be playing the part of bully.
I’ve just discovered young Mr. Greene, this article is a well-organized & concise data rich piece albeit a couple months old. It’s a useful timeline itself. Greene caveats in conclusion:
“None of this is to say that Putin’s invasion is justified—FAIR resolutely condemns the invasion as illegal and ruinous—but calling it “unprovoked” distracts attention from the US’s own contribution to this disastrous outcome.”
I differ with FAIR here in favor of Thomas Aquinas’ writing on “Just War.” The requirements are easy to look up across the web but in short are, 1. Just Cause, 2. Comparative Justice, 3. Competent Authority, 4. Right Intention, 5. Probability of Success, 6. Last Resort, 7. Proportionality. If you take each in turn, there is plenty of evidence to satisfy each in the history of this conflict.